This has probably been beat to death but after driving past BWI this afternoon and watching the endless parade of WN's 737-700s arrive and depart, I couldn't help but wonder how they'd fare with the -800 and -900 variants both in terms of capacity and range.

I found it quite surprising to learn that WN do not have B738's as WN's Irish cousin (Ryanair) using nothing but B738's. All 200 odd aircraft in their fleet are B738's and FR's original business model is lifted straight out of the WN text book.

Quoting 777fan (Thread starter):This has probably been beat to death but after driving past BWI this afternoon and watching the endless parade of WN's 737-700s arrive and depart, I couldn't help but wonder how they'd fare with the -800 and -900 variants both in terms of capacity and range.

1. Inter-operability with their 737-300 in terms of crew scheduling, ticket booking. There's no logistic issues swapping two aircraft if needed.

Well I know for one thing, labor costs would go up because the -300, -500 and -700 series WN have now only require 3 FA's while adding the -800 and -900 would require an additional flight attendant. In addition, the -800 and -900 would have longer turn around times which Southwest prides itself on having some of the fastest turn around times in the industry and is key to their business model. I think they would be straying away from their business model by adding these variants and up until this point, WN has decided the additional capacity a -800 or -900 can add isn't justified at this point.

Quoting TUSdawg23 (Reply 4):Well I know for one thing, labor costs would go up because the -300, -500 and -700 series WN have now only require 3 FA's while adding the -800 and -900 would require an additional flight attendant. In addition, the -800 and -900 would have longer turn around times which Southwest prides itself on having some of the fastest turn around times in the industry and is key to their business model. I think they would be straying away from their business model by adding these variants and up until this point, WN has decided the additional capacity a -800 or -900 can add isn't justified at this point.

I suppose in FR's situation, when they switched over to B738's, they did so very quickly and completely phased out their other B737 variants very quickly, so there was only a very short period when they used to operate multiple different B737 variants. However, in terms of turnaround times, I cannot see where the B738 is at a significant disadvantage as FR turns aircraft around in similar times to WN (about 25 to 30 minutes). You can make the age old argument about turnaround times but reality check. An additional 5 to 10 minutes per rotation is not going to make very much difference.

I'd argue the point about load factors; practically every WN flight I've been on over the past few years (typically involving BWI and/or MDW) has been full. Additionally, as tonymctigue pointed out, the addition turn time is likely to have a minimal affect on WN's overall schedule. Considering this, how did they work the TZ 738s into their schedule?

5 flights = 2x25 = 50 minutes (assuming two rotations per round trip flight). You will not get an extra flight out of that aircraft on any given day just by taking five minutes extra per rotation to turn the plane around and the extra revenue from the additional passengers you carry on a single flight will more than cover the cost of the extra few minutes on the ground.

WN crew costs will go up with the 738, so they will have to weigh that against the benefits of the extra capacity going into LGA (really the only place where slot constraints are really critical).

I can't imagine them adding additional variants since their stage lengths are reasonably short on most of their flights. To get them for a single route or for transcon just doesn't make sense for them. IMHO.

Quoting 777fan (Thread starter):This has probably been beat to death but after driving past BWI this afternoon and watching the endless parade of WN's 737-700s arrive and depart, I couldn't help but wonder how they'd fare with the -800 and -900 variants both in terms of capacity and range.

Discuss...

oops, forgot to give my two cents on the topic at hand....

...yes, it's been absolutely beat to death. Judging by WN's actions, apparently the -800s etc... don't fit in their business plans, or else you can be sure that they would've had them by now. And for a company that has been profitable for over 30+ straight years, I think they know what's best for them. Really, simple as that.

WNTex

"The chief cause of failure and unhappiness is trading what you want most for what you want now." -Zig Ziglar

Quoting tonymctigue (Reply 8):5 flights = 2x25 = 50 minutes (assuming two rotations per round trip flight). You will not get an extra flight out of that aircraft on any given day just by taking five minutes extra per rotation to turn the plane around and the extra revenue from the additional passengers you carry on a single flight will more than cover the cost of the extra few minutes on the ground.

Without arguing a specific example, I would respectfully disagree in principle. 50 minutes/day x 30 (let's assume) -800's = 25 hours, or about 2 to 2 1/2 planes' worth of flying per day. While you might argue that they wouldn't schedule a plane at the end of the day in those last minutes, I don't think it matters. The productivity of the asset will be reduced in the hours/day respect, tying up the equivalent of about $60-$80 million in assets over what they otherwise would do (a rough guess of what WN pays for the plane/engine/fittings for 2 1/2 planes).

Would the extra passenger capacity balance that out? I have my doubts.

Quoting tonymctigue (Reply 8):You will not get an extra flight out of that aircraft on any given day just by taking five minutes extra per rotation to turn the plane around and the extra revenue from the additional passengers you carry on a single flight will more than cover the cost of the extra few minutes on the ground.

Depending on the city pairs you were flying, you COULD get an extra flight out of that.

Of course, what we need to look at to figure this out is WN's specific utilization rate... how many hours a day is each aircraft in the air, on average... how many flights does it make each day, what's the average flight length, and how long is the average turn. (Yes, I know WN is famous for the 20 minute turn, but they're not all that short.)

Anyone have access to that information, or at least decent estimates?

Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.

But, there may be a couple of ways to look at the 738 flying for WN that could benefit from added capacity.

Many WN routes have 5 or more roundtrips. If the 738 gave them 25 extra seats, that would result in 972 seats on 6 flights where 7 73G flights now offer 959 seats. The extra cost of the 738 fuel and 4th FA would be easily eclipsed by the reduction of one flight. Knowing WN like frequency, this reduction would probably work well on markets with 6 or more daily flights and allow 5-10 extra turn times. The more flights in the market, the more opportunity for frequency reduction without leaving holes in the schedule.

Another way would be to set the 738 at 150 seats (3 FAs) and offer something like 35-36 inch pitch throughout the cabin. That would allow 13 more seats to be sold with only the added fuel per flight and purchase cost amortized over the life of the aircraft. the added pitch could show more value for customers and probably aid the turn time by just plain having more space to move in and out of each row.

I don't think WN flies any routes where the slightly extra range or the 73G vs. 738 would be needed. It looks like SEA-BWI and SAN-BWI are the longest flights. CO flies the heavier 738 EWR-SEA/SFO, IAH-ANC, LAX-HNL/OGG (ETOPS fuel needed).

I have one word to disprove all the above claims about the suitability of the B738 for LCC operations. Ryanair, Europe's biggest, most successful and most profitable LCC, who pride themselves on the 25 minute turnaround using the B738.

Quoting tonymctigue (Reply 17):I have one word to disprove all the above claims about the suitability of the B738 for LCC operations. Ryanair, Europe's biggest, most successful and most profitable LCC, who pride themselves on the 25 minute turnaround using the B738.

To be fair, I'm not saying it couldn't work or wouldn't work, but I think there are considerations that may tip the balance in the other direction. It depends on the carrier, and WN is not the same as every carrier. I guess the reverse argument could be made: If WN is so successful with the -700, why doesn't Ryanair fly it?

I think that the big reason is flexibility; having all of their planes the same size means that any crew and any aircraft can fill any hole in the schedule. To those who haven't had to manage a schedule, this may seem like a small thing, but it significantly reduces the need for spare aircraft and crews, and makes utilization much more efficient. Since they started with the 772, when the Classics came along the natural choice was the 773, as it was the same size. So when the NG's came out, it likewise made more sense to go with the 73G rather than the 738, as it would fit seamlessly. Perhaps if they had made the decision at that point to switch to the 738 it would have worked out for them, but it would have likely meant that the 733's would have had to be phased out much faster. But the main point is that WN has been consistently profitable whereas no other legacy airline has been, and it is awfully hard to argue convincingly with success. If they do choose to add larger planes to deal with slot restrictions, it will only be done after very careful analysis. Personally, I think they will choose not to mess with what has brought them success.

The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler

My question is a bit different: why has WN never bothered with the 736? WN still flies the 735, and the 736 could be a more fuel-efficient replacement for the 735, just as the 735 was a more fuel-efficient successor to the 732 on routes thought to have too little pax demand for the 733 or, later, the 73G.

I may question your opinion, but I'll never question your right to it.

Quoting tonymctigue (Reply 17):Ryanair, Europe's biggest, most successful and most profitable LCC, who pride themselves on the 25 minute turnaround using the B738.

Southwest's business model is not the same as Ryanair's.

Quoting Antoniemey (Reply 15):how many flights does it make each day, what's the average flight length, and how long is the average turn. (Yes, I know WN is famous for the 20 minute turn, but they're not all that short.)

Historically, Southwest's 737's did about 8 flights per day but that's down to 6.5 now as the average stage length has gone up a bit.

Quoting tonymctigue (Reply 8):5 flights = 2x25 = 50 minutes (assuming two rotations per round trip flight). You will not get an extra flight out of that aircraft on any given day just by taking five minutes extra per rotation to turn the plane around and the extra revenue from the additional passengers you carry on a single flight will more than cover the cost of the extra few minutes on the ground.

They're not scheduling a single aircraft, they're scheduling 540 aircraft, and 5 extra minutes per flight works out to 17 additional aircraft across the schedule of 3300+ daily flights (assuming an average duty day of about 16 hours).

Quoting WNTex (Reply 10):Low? If you think an average LF of 75% is low...then maybe.

WN has traditionally had one of the lowest load factors among the majors -- made up for by the fact that they've generally had the highest percentage of full-fare customers.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 16):Many WN routes have 5 or more roundtrips. If the 738 gave them 25 extra seats, that would result in 972 seats on 6 flights where 7 73G flights now offer 959 seats. The extra cost of the 738 fuel and 4th FA would be easily eclipsed by the reduction of one flight. Knowing WN like frequency, this reduction would probably work well on markets with 6 or more daily flights and allow 5-10 extra turn times. The more flights in the market, the more opportunity for frequency reduction without leaving holes in the schedule.

There is, however, a potential for reduced revenue when customers might choose a competitor with a more attractively-timed flight. WN gets a revenue premium over competitors in a number of short-haul markets due in part to their more frequent schedules.

Quoting tonymctigue (Reply 17):I have one word to disprove all the above claims about the suitability of the B738 for LCC operations. Ryanair, Europe's biggest, most successful and most profitable LCC, who pride themselves on the 25 minute turnaround using the B738.

most airports served by Ryanair are lower traveled airports usually away from a busy area. For example Southwest has only 2 airports that I can think of that are away from a main city hub, Midway and Dallas Love. Everywhere else they fly into the main airport like LAX or LAS. Ryanair can fly into a less used airport which helps their turnaround time.

25 canyonblue17
: I have been told there is a technical reason why WN will not be getting the -800s. According to several pilots, because of their additional weight and

26 John
: The 738 has excellent short field performance, so I don't think MDW limitations would be much of an issue, at least no more than it does for a -700. I

27 seabosdca
: The 736 is actually less fuel-efficient than the 735 under most circumstances because it's so much heavier. That's why it sold so poorly. There is pr

28 Burkhard
: A little tiny detail: Ryanair never boards through jetways, but over the tarmac using both doors even on airports that have jetways like Stansted. If

29 UAL747DEN
: Anyone remember the WN 757's.... I agree with you 100% on this one. Nope.